IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 18 OF 2026
ASVAS HOMES LLP … PETITIONER
VERSUS
TIOFILO SEBASTIAO DE SOUZA ALIAS TIOFILO
DE SOUZA AND ORS. … RESPONDENTS
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC – compromise of suit – where the Consent Terms have been filed before the Court and the parties are requesting to draw a Consent Decree in terms of the consent before the Court – The provision mandates the Court to order such an agreement, compromise or satisfaction, which is to be recorded and a Decree to be passed in terms of the agreement of compromise.
Held: – the impugned order directing the Plaintiff to record evidence is contrary to the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC and must be quashed and set aside. I have also perused the Consent Terms which are admittedly signed by the parties to the suit (as recorded by the Trial Court), I have found that the same appeared to be framed not contrary to any provisions of law. Therefore, there is no cause for the Trial Court to refuse to draw a decree in terms of the Consent Terms filed before it.
CASES CITED
1) M/s Silver Screen Enterprises V/s Devki Nandan Nagpal [1970 (3) Supreme Court Cases 878]
2) Luis Nemesio Menezes & anr V/s Agapito Salvador Bento Menezes [Writ Petition No. 278/2025]
FACTS
The petition has impugned order dated 05.11.2025, passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division ‘A’ Court at Mapusa in Regular Civil Suit No.25/2025/A, whereby, despite, the Consent Terms having been filed by the parties to the suit in the Trial Court, the Court has recorded that the parties were present before the Trial Court and has agreed to execute the said Consent Terms and the Court has refused to pass a Decree in term of the Consent Terms and has directed the Plaintiff to lead evidence in the matter.